Updated Feb 2017Leaky buildings require design work for their remediation. MBIE has useful publications for this purpose. Providing the proper prudence is shown, there is no reason why this should not be a useful source of architectural business, but care needs to be taken to avoid the prospect of becoming responsible for past or unknown defects.The potential risks are as follows:
Where the work arises from a WHRS claim, the assessor will have identified the scope of remediation and estimate of cost. The assessors are not omniscient, may be unduly cautious, carry no liability for their reports, and are not permitted to be involved in subsequent remediation. Consequently, the work inevitably varies when opened up, and the scope will be subject to ongoing assessment of the damages and causes of it.The following is an example of an assessor’s estimate:Subtotal repair costs$380,000Project management (incl in remediation consultant)inclDesign and documentation$ 20,000Remediation Consultant$ 38,000Additional laboratory testing and other consultants$ 4,000Total excl GST$442,000Here, (as is usual) the remediation consultant is assumed to be in control of the contract administration and observation. The initial scope of design documentation would be limited (in the engagement agreement) to the work as described in the assessor’s report, and it would be subject to review by the remediation consultant. Note that if the remediation work is subject to the FAP (Financial Assistance Package), or the BCA has been a party to the resolution of disputes responsibility and costs, there can be a very significant involvement in obtaining agreements and approvals. Any additional work arising during construction should be initiated and scoped by the remediation consultant, and negotiated with the BCA, with a consequent design fee adjustment. Completion of both design work and construction work would require approval by the remediation consultant as to scope and performance.But it is preferable for the architect to have ongoing involvement in the construction phase, and of course there are fees to be earned for contract administration - whether or not called or including project management. The key issue is that unless the architect has specific expertise in remediation, the ongoing reassessment of the damages, causation, and extent of remediation design and construction should remain with a remediation consultant.Accordingly, it is suggested that there is ample scope for architects to be primary consultants in remediation work, acting in collaboration with a separately appointed remediation consultant. As is usual in such arrangements, the terms of engagement of both will require co-ordination to allocate the tasks and responsibilities. Be aware that you could be tortiously liable to a subsequent homeowner.Your site visits need to be well recorded, with photos of uncovered and ongoing work. Scope changes need to be recorded and tied into the instructions given by others, the additional documentation required, and to the extent of defects observable at the time. Confirm and clarify the extent to which you are required to approve work not directly instructed by the remediation consultant.Already there have been bruising cases of remediation requiring remediation. These have arisen from inadequate design, inadequate construction, inadequate identification of the extent of the defects, inadequate recordkeeping, and budgets which have forced a partial remediation. As an architect, you will not want to be involved in any of those issues. Even assuming you specifically limited your involvement, there is always the potential for someone to assert that you were less than professional, and thus should share in the adverse outcomes.Your performance needs to be weathertight!